G.R. No. 174238 - Cheng vs. Spouses Sy

Petitioner Anita Cheng filed two estafa cases before RTC, Branch 7, Manila (Criminal Case Nos. 98-969952 vs. Tessie Sy and 98-969953 vs. William Sy) for issuance of PBC Checks Nos. 171762 and 71860 (P300,000.00 each) that were dishonored for being drawn on a closed account.
On the same facts, petitioner also filed two Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22) cases before MeTC, Branch 25, Manila (Criminal Case Nos. 341458-59) on January 20, 1999.

On March 16, 2004, RTC, Branch 7 dismissed both estafa cases for failure to prove the elements of the crime. The dismissal in No. 98-969952 made no declaration as to civil liability; the dismissal in No. 98-969953 stated that any liability was “purely civil.”
On February 7, 2005, MeTC, Branch 25 dismissed the BP 22 cases on demurrer for failure of the prosecution to identify the accused in open court, likewise without any pronouncement on civil liability.

On April 26, 2005, petitioner filed Civil Case No. 05-112452 before RTC, Branch 18, Manila for collection of P600,000.00 with damages, based on the same loan and checks.
On January 2, 2006, RTC, Branch 18 dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the civil action was impliedly instituted in the BP 22 cases under Section 1(b), Rule 111, 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure. A motion for reconsideration was denied on June 5, 2006.

Petitioner filed a Rule 45 petition before the Supreme Court challenging the application of Section 1 of Rule 111, 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure, and Supreme Court Circular No. 57-97, on the ground that her BP 22 cases were filed in 1999 and, in any event, were dismissed for failure to identify the accused.
She also invoked several exceptions to deeming the civil action as impliedly instituted with the criminal action and argued that she was deprived of her day in court because she was not assisted by a private prosecutor in the BP 22 proceedings.

Whether Section 1, Rule 111 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure and Supreme Court Circular No. 57-97 apply to BP 22 cases filed in 1999 and dismissed for failure to establish the identities of the accused.
Whether petitioner may maintain a separate civil action for collection of P600,000.00 with damages after the dismissals of her BP 22 and estafa cases, in light of alleged exceptions to the rule deeming the civil action as instituted with the criminal action.